[…] The information in this complaint raises questions of whether Mr. Stark violated the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, as more specifically set forth herein, or in the alternative, whether Mr. Stark exhibited bias and a conflict of interest which significantly impaired his professional judgement, performance and competency as an attorney, and whether Mr. Stark had engaged in conduct which is contemptuous and considered contrary to community standards ofjustice, honesty, or good morals, in attempting to stage a coup d’état against his client, the current standing Chairman of the North Carolina GOP, Hasan Harnett. […]

Good question. Has Stark been leading an effort to undermine his own client, the chairman of the state Republican Party?

From the complaint, here’s another interesting item:

Note that Tom Stark voted to censure his own client. The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit a lawyer from foreclosing on a client – what about voting to censure him?

There’s more:

[I have made disparaging public statements about Dallas Woodhouse myself. One can do that, as Dallas Woodhouse is a public figure (re: N.C.G.S. § 14-196.3, this e-mail conforms to Section (e) which applies to any peaceable, nonviolent, or nonthreatening activity -6- intended to express political views or to provide lawful information to others. This section shall not be construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity, including speech, protest, or assembly.) However, when Mr. Stark accuses his client of hacking the 2016 State Convention website, he had better have some damn good evidence.]

I was referring to Stark, not the computer conman. But then, from a conversation I overheard at the last executive committee meeting, Stark also is extremely tight with David Lewis, something he did not disclose to the body during his heavy involvement with the Lewis impeachment.

Talk about a can of worms. The bad guys just keep digging themselves in deeper and deeper as they try to maneuver around this sneaky plot they created and put in action. The truth will hit the light of day and when it does it will be the preverbal SHTF moment and justice will be served.

Stark is a strange bird who functions very differently from past General Counsels. Instead of looking out for the legalities of the entire party, he only seems to think he represents the power clique on the Central Committee. He is a gutter fighter for their interests, even when that goes against the greater interests of the party as a whole. He seems to view himself as the chief prosecutor against the chairman, which is a totally improper role for him to be playing. His preparing that affidavit against Harnett from that conman of a computer guy leaves real questions about how much of his spin is in it and how much that may not have been helpful to his side he left out. And, of course, he was not going to even mention the deep relationship between the conman computer guy and the Wests / Cottens / Cotten-Wests.

There needs to be strong objection to Stark’s involvement in any way in the April 30 meeting, as he is far from neutral or unbiased. And we badly need a new General Counsel, someone who will function like past holders of that office, when Stark’s term ends or even sooner if possible.

Stark is such a knee-jerk partisan of the Central Committee power clique that it explains why someone went to such lengths as to threaten his predecessor personally and professionally to the extent that he resigned. They forced the predecessor out to put in Stark as one of their own power players.

What do you really expect from a Central Committee that imposes gag orders to prohibit its members from speaking with others in the party, and threatens legal action if they do? Skullduggery is a common reason for secrecy of this sort.

The 200 signatures should be accompanied by various date postmarked envelopes from those who called the meeting. They are evidence and surely have been retained by our legal counsel as a member of the Bar. I received additional mail today with a pseudo Agenda for April 30, but another piece of correspondence signed by the majority of District Chairmen.